Here's a thought - if our economic system was more just, provided more opportunity to move out of poverty, allowed for a fair shake at the american dream, maybe, people wouldn't have to go through shady measures to get theirs.

OF course it's easier to see the bad behavior of the poor. Bad behavior at the top. That's ok. Or at least our leglslators reward/reprimand in a way that says its ok.

And damn straight I have an agenda. Too many damn people are struggling for reasons beyond their personal control.

For every welfare queen I can counteract with a story of real struggle and need as a food bank employee and someone who lives in a low-income community.

But that's not the point. The point is that the House vote about the farm bill is unprecedented.

the nutrition bill has NEVER been separated from the farm side
the cuts are crazy high
the legislation has always been bi-partisan. It's not even close.

I repeat. This is unprecedented and we should all ask ourselves why this came to be.

I won't even bother to respond to the claim of how much fraud there is. Feelings and anecdotes are not facts.

Another great film to watch. Two american families
Pay close attention to the mother who always looks nice, has her nails done, looks professional in spite of struggleTwo American Families | FRONTLINE | PBS

Here's a thought - if our economic system was more just, provided more opportunity to move out of poverty, allowed for a fair shake at the american dream, maybe, people wouldn't have to go through shady measures to get theirs.

OF course it's easier to see the bad behavior of the poor. Bad behavior at the top. That's ok. Or at least our leglslators reward/reprimand in a way that says its ok.

And damn straight I have an agenda. Too many damn people are struggling for reasons beyond their personal control.

For every welfare queen I can counteract with a story of real struggle and need as a food bank employee and someone who lives in a low-income community.

But that's not the point. The point is that the House vote about the farm bill is unprecedented.

the nutrition bill has NEVER been separated from the farm side
the cuts are crazy high
the legislation has always been bi-partisan. It's not even close.

I repeat. This is unprecedented and we should all ask ourselves why this came to be.

I won't even bother to respond to the claim of how much fraud there is. Feelings and anecdotes are not facts.

Originally Posted by webjockey

Yes, anecdotes can be facts! Who told you they weren't!? They just weren't obtained using the scientific method.

But now ezine articles and statistics pulled from the internet...they are never, ever misleading!

Come on Spidey, this is about food stamps, so I don't think it's reasonable to say "welfare". I mean, unless we're going to talk about all the other entitlements out there: tax breaks for homeowners, subsidized flood insurance for those homeowners, etc. Why accept section 8 if the people are so fraudulently receiving assistance from the government? Why not seek tenants who can pay with cash they have earned/borrowed from somewhere else instead of passively supporting their cheating? Would/did you accept a tenant that offered to pay you under the table?

The poor are easy targets. To be poor is to be weak and an eff up. People who receive SNAP are easy targets because they're poor who dare to admit it and seek assistance. The House has been threatening to do this for over a year now, I'm not surprised they finally did it. Bad timing for them though, because if the government shuts down 9/30, who is or is not getting food stamps will be the least of their problems.

growing up in the Viet community during the 2nd wave of Viet immigrants in the 80s-90s there were numerous stories of newcommers taking advantage of the system. with the 2nd generation not so much but theres still some cheating. is there cheating in the welfare system? definitely. does the welfare system need reforming? absolutely. but lets call this bill for what it is a move by the republicans to keep the focus/blame on the poor and the weak(minorities) - because they know it wont pass the Senate or the POTUS. some the attempts by conservative states in the last few years: anti-immigrant bills, no Obamacare, voter ID, closing low cost clinics, no same-sex marriage, anti-unions, etc.

I think the reason people are bitter about welfare and assistance is because so many of us know at least a few people/families who are milking the system. Mom and/or Dad won't work, never intend to work, have as many kids as they want, always drive new cars, have huge tvs in every room, buy every new iThing that comes out, run their kids to specialists every time they get a cough, and eat just fine and don't even have sense enough to lie or keep quiet about it. They gloat.

They have more kids than we can afford, see doctors for free when our (expensive) insurance won't pay. We keep the old phone, skip the new game systems for our kids, budget for groceries and drive our old cars into the ground because we have to LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.

Them most of us have a friend or sister or cousin whose husband died or left, she works full time and then some raising three kids and making it work somehow because she makes $12 too much for assistance and we see that neighbor who brags about another new massive tv and we think - there is something very wrong with this system.

It FEELS like there's a direct coloration between the people we know who NEED HELP and can't get it and the people who DO NOT but are sucking the system dry. We hear there have been cuts and part of us thinks fine, start with those lazy people we know who won't work and maybe there will be more for the mom of three working two jobs. Of course, it does not work like that. The people who are going to game the system will always get theirs, and the people who won't lie to get help will always suffer.

These cuts are bad news, the system is broken. The cuts are not going to fix it at all, there will just be more hungry kids.

A couple of people living "hood rich" should not effect millions. And please believe, one missed check and these people are in BIG trouble. Those TV's will be back to Rent-a-Center and the cars will be repo'd.

In general this mentality is very frustrating to me. This song says it all

Just because they are flossing, it doesn't mean they have money. These are the same ones coming to me and my responsible friends and family the day after the big cookout because they don't have enough food for the week.

Come on Spidey, this is about food stamps, so I don't think it's reasonable to say "welfare". I mean, unless we're going to talk about all the other entitlements out there: tax breaks for homeowners, subsidized flood insurance for those homeowners, etc.

Originally Posted by curlyarca

I'm talking about the MEANS TESTED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE programs that relate to the population who receive food stamps. Flood insurance, etc., isn't germane to this particular topic.

Why accept section 8 if the people are so fraudulently receiving assistance from the government?

Originally Posted by curlyarca

I know there is a huge need among ppl/families who honestly and legitmately qualify for these services and I want to help them. I want children to grow up in the nicest, safest homes they can.

Why not seek tenants who can pay with cash they have earned/borrowed from somewhere else instead of passively supporting their cheating?

Originally Posted by curlyarca

When I see a glaring, unmistakable offense, I report it. I won't knowingly support cheating. But I contract w/ the housing agency, not the tenant. I'm not their babysitter. I just own and maintain the properties.

But yes, I have private pay tenants, too.

Would/did you accept a tenant that offered to pay you under the table?

Originally Posted by curlyarca

Never. (And have lost a lot of money by refusing to accept it.)

The poor are easy targets. To be poor is to be weak and an eff up.

Originally Posted by curlyarca

I don't think the majority of Americans feel this way. Most of us agree that there is a need for these programs...but utilized the right way. (Most of us are but a paycheck or two away from the same situation so who are we to judge?)

Food stamps are not the problem. Wages are the problem.

Originally Posted by curlyarca

True. But a separate problem is the fraud and abuse that plague the welfare system...which admittedly probably won't be improved w/ this legislation.

A couple of people living "hood rich" should not effect millions. And please believe, one missed check and these people are in BIG trouble. Those TV's will be back to Rent-a-Center and the cars will be repo'd.

In general this mentality is very frustrating to me. This song says it all

Just because they are flossing, it doesn't mean they have money. These are the same ones coming to me and my responsible friends and family the day after the big cookout because they don't have enough food for the week.

Originally Posted by scrills

That's even worse!

But I know some of them have it bc when their vouchers get cancelled (due to fraud or whatever), they can seemlessly go from paying less than $100/month to paying $900/month out of pocket. I see what they have.

Obviously, this isn't all ppl receiving benefits. I think most begin w/ documented, unquestionable need. But somewhere along the line, their circumstances change. But some get too comfortable and won't voluntarily opt of out of the system or report the changes, as they are supposed to.

And it's not just the cash that they do it for. There is huge peace of mind that comes from knowing that if you get laid off or fired or decide to quit your job, you can make a call, and everything is taken care of.

Medicaid spending is currently the largest of the means-tested programs (40%). (CBO says that the next large means-tested program will be related to people buying insurance through the health exchanges starting next week. Will people who buy insurance off the exchanges be the next stigmatized group?) Just so everyone knows, a lot of Medicaid fraud is typically not from the poor beneficiaries but from providers and suppliers, capitalizing on capitalism.

I guess I don't understand: why are means-tested programs always the ones singled-out as susceptible to fraud? Means-tested programs are not the only burdens on taxpayers.

Originally Posted by curlyarca

No one is saying that here. We're responding to this particular HB.

Wasn't there a big outcry during Enron and after the bank bailout when we discovered the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs? Aren't there always watchdog reports and exposes identifying all kinds of frivolous gov't spending? Locally, politicians are always getting busted for charging family vacations and home remodeling etc to their gov't expense accounts.

The thing w/ fraud is, ppl don't care about it unless the funds came out of their own pockets...hence we see the big reactions to gov't programs. But there is all kinds of fraud in the private sector...which really pisses off the trustees and shareholders, but few others.

There was a story on our local NPR station this morning about food stamp fraud. A store owner was convicted of fraud because he was allowing customers to buy ineligible items and then using the stamps for personal use. It reminded me of this thread

There was a story on our local NPR station this morning about food stamp fraud. A store owner was convicted of fraud because he was allowing customers to buy ineligible items and then using the stamps for personal use. It reminded me of this thread

Originally Posted by scrills

Or all the supermarkets (in low income areas) that were erasing the expiration dates on powdered baby formula and selling them

But in your story, how is this possible anymore since they switched to using the card and did away w/ the paper stamps?

The investigation revealed that the defendants and others used the business to exchange food stamps and WIC coupons for cash and other unauthorized items, including beer and cigarettes. The men also purchased customer food stamp cards and used them at other grocery locations to purchase inventory for the market and for their own personal use, according to the indictment.

I understand the resentment over people who cheat the system - I've seen it firsthand and I can't deny that my blood boils every time.

But this isn't about fraud, or saving taxpayers' money. This is about the Republicans punishing the poor because they voted Democratic. This reminds me of Reagan's mythical "welfare queen in a Cadillac, using 80 names and 30 addresses" etc etc. Problem is, she never existed. Reporters searched every government database at every level, to no avail. But it didn't matter to Reagan's supporters, who fervently believed he was speaking to a greater truth about those lazy slobs living on the dole. That fabricated anecdote helped him win an election. And you're incredibly naive if you think this isn't about race.

Yes, we were all outraged when we learned about the bank bailout being used for executive bonuses. But in the end, after the scandal faded from the spotlight, those executives all received those taxpayer-funded bonuses anyway. Private equity and hedge fund managers make millions in untaxed income every year, because out elected representatives have decided to classify those earnings as "carried interest" and exempt it from taxation. So the rest of us working stiffs have to cover their share so that we can fund our military, Medicare, highways etc.

The information Webjockey cites are not "ezine articles" or "statistics pulled from the internet", but analyses written by respected experts and scholars & based on meticulous research. Try reading up on the farm subsidy programs mentioned in the National Review article Webjockey referenced. Not only do they cost American taxpayers billions annually to line the pockets of agribusinesses such as ADM, Cargill, Monsanto et al, but the types of crops that get the most money are the least healthy, thereby contributing to our obesity crisis. That's a big reason why it's so much cheaper to eat junk rather than good food, and also the reason why we have a pointless ethanol mandate. The military is forced to spend $400 billion (and counting) on the F-35, a deeply flawed fighter jet that will never perform as promised. Why? Perhaps because Lockheed made sure to give a lot of money to powerful politicians, and spread the manufacturing of the plane over 46 states. And we foot the bill.

When Chicago is closing 54 public schools, yet has $100 million for DePaul University to build a basketball arena, or Michigan is providing $450 million for a new hockey arena in Detroit while allowing the city itself to go bankrupt, you know our priorities are messed up.

To better understand why corporate welfare costs us exponentially more in wasted $$ than social welfare, I highly recommend "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnson (or any of his books, for that matter).

I understand the resentment over people who cheat the system - I've seen it firsthand and I can't deny that my blood boils every time.

But this isn't about fraud, or saving taxpayers' money. This is about the Republicans punishing the poor because they voted Democratic. This reminds me of Reagan's mythical "welfare queen in a Cadillac, using 80 names and 30 addresses" etc etc. Problem is, she never existed. Reporters searched every government database at every level, to no avail. But it didn't matter to Reagan's supporters, who fervently believed he was speaking to a greater truth about those lazy slobs living on the dole. That fabricated anecdote helped him win an election. And you're incredibly naive if you think this isn't about race.

Yes, we were all outraged when we learned about the bank bailout being used for executive bonuses. But in the end, after the scandal faded from the spotlight, those executives all received those taxpayer-funded bonuses anyway. Private equity and hedge fund managers make millions in untaxed income every year, because out elected representatives have decided to classify those earnings as "carried interest" and exempt it from taxation. So the rest of us working stiffs have to cover their share so that we can fund our military, Medicare, highways etc.

The information Webjockey cites are not "ezine articles" or "statistics pulled from the internet", but analyses written by respected experts and scholars & based on meticulous research. Try reading up on the farm subsidy programs mentioned in the National Review article Webjockey referenced. Not only do they cost American taxpayers billions annually to line the pockets of agribusinesses such as ADM, Cargill, Monsanto et al, but the types of crops that get the most money are the least healthy, thereby contributing to our obesity crisis. That's a big reason why it's so much cheaper to eat junk rather than good food, and also the reason why we have a pointless ethanol mandate. The military is forced to spend $400 billion (and counting) on the F-35, a deeply flawed fighter jet that will never perform as promised. Why? Perhaps because Lockheed made sure to give a lot of money to powerful politicians, and spread the manufacturing of the plane over 46 states. And we foot the bill.

When Chicago is closing 54 public schools, yet has $100 million for DePaul University to build a basketball arena, or Michigan is providing $450 million for a new hockey arena in Detroit while allowing the city itself to go bankrupt, you know our priorities are messed up.

To better understand why corporate welfare costs us exponentially more in wasted $$ than social welfare, I highly recommend "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnson (or any of his books, for that matter).

Originally Posted by yossarian

IDK why you're assuming I haven't read extensively on this topic. Ppl can disagree w/ the left leaning rhetoric and still be well-read.

IDK why you're assuming I haven't read extensively on this topic. Ppl can disagree w/ the left leaning rhetoric and still be well-read.

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Once again, it's not "left-leaning rhetoric", which you should know if you have read so extensively on the topic. As Webjockey pointed out, National Review is solidly conservative. And many of the best studies on corporate welfare have been conducted by such right-wing think tanks as Cato Institute (founded by Tea Party icon/billionaire Charles Koch) and Heritage Foundation.

IDK why you're assuming I haven't read extensively on this topic. Ppl can disagree w/ the left leaning rhetoric and still be well-read.

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Once again, it's not "left-leaning rhetoric", which you should know if you have read so extensively on the topic. As Webjockey pointed out, National Review is solidly conservative. And many of the best studies on corporate welfare have been conducted by such right-wing think tanks as Cato Institute (founded by Tea Party icon/billionaire Charles Koch) and Heritage Foundation.

Truth has no ideology.

Originally Posted by yossarian

If you want to discuss corporate welfare, start a thread on that topic.